Letters to the Editor: Voter suppression, arbitrary state rules make this the worst election ever

Voters wait in line before early balloting begins in Decatur, Ga., on Oct. 12.
Voters wait in line before early balloting begins in Decatur, Ga., on Oct. 12.
(Ben Gray / Associated Press)

To the editor: In my 70 years of being alive, this election season has got to be the absolute worst ever. (“Memo to the Supreme Court: Let the people vote,” editorial, Oct. 30)

The reduction of polling places and ballot dropoff boxes in some areas; the slowdown of mail service; the withholding of federal funding to certain states for nakedly political reasons — all are making this election particularly difficult.

This is a federal election. States could follow the same rules. Why should a voter in Texas have to drive for miles and miles to drop off a ballot?


I have long thought that all campaigning should be limited only to three months prior to election day. If a candidate cannot explain their stance on the issues within that time, too bad. Doing this would greatly reduce the fighting and allow the citizens to exercise their franchise as guaranteed by federal law. Of course, it would reduce the income of the various fields of the media industry.

And God knows, it would reduce the time we’d have to listen to and read of the insults made by the candidates of their opponents, which are, just plainly, rude behaviors.

Randy Smith, Cathedral City


To the editor: I don’t understand the thinking of the U.S. Supreme Court justices and their suppression, or at the very least discouragement, of voting.

They must have, at some point in their vaunted Ivy League educations, heard about the rise of fascism in Europe. Why on Earth are they bending the rules to favor authoritarianism in this erstwhile beacon of democracy?

I am mystified.

Zena Thorpe, Chatsworth


To the editor: The wisest thing the Supreme Court could do regarding the election is to stay out of it and avoid getting drowned in the quagmire with the disreputable Rehnquist court, which decided Bush vs. Gore in 2000.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh didn’t do Chief Justice John Roberts any favors by citing the Rehnquist court in his recent opinion on voting in Pennsylvania, but he did lay his cards on the table so we can see what things might look like down the road.

Democrat Joe Biden may well win the election handily, making it unnecessary for the Supreme Court to intervene. If so, Kavanaugh’s way of thinking is going to force Biden and Congress to expand not just the Supreme Court but probably the entire federal judiciary.

Kavanaugh has made it very clear what a 6-3 conservative majority will mean for Biden, and Biden will certainly realize that it will mean a failed presidency. It could also mean trouble for Kamala Harris if she runs for president in 2024.

The Supreme Court must be expanded and the conservative majority must be sidelined.

Muriel Schuerman, Downey